stubbicatt
Member
Been experimenting with 32-40. Read elsewhere that pistol primers give better results than do rifle primers in this cartridge. Whether that is because they are easier to detonate or because they have a better mixture of priming compound or what, I am not entirely sure yet.
However, as I understand it, pistol primers are not as tall as rifle primers, so when seated in the primer pocket, they will be seated more deeply than a rifle primer, giving rise to the question in my mind whether a firing pin will be long enough to reach them to set them off.
So I tried a little test. I simply seated a CCI large pistol primer in a 32-40 case, inserted it into the chamber, and dropped the hammer on it.
Bang!
So at least the first step returned a positive result. I also put the muzzle of the rifle into an old blanket/comforter I use to cover up my old motorcycle in the garage in the winter to keep dust off it. I did this to sort of muffle the blast from the little "amorce" when I set it off. I noticed a blackened, muzzle diameter area in the fabric of the blanket. Presumably the pistol primer blast traversed the entire length of the barrel to make that smudge.
This smudge got me thinking about small charges of powder in a comparatively large case, and powder position sensitivity. I haven't conducted any experiments yet on this phenomenon. The internet has plenty of commentary on this phenomenon, but dang, if the primer blast traverses 20+ inches of barrel to leave a burn mark on a blanket, it just doesn't seem like this powder position could be an issue. (???)
Next comes experimentation with breech seating and what seems like tiny charges of IMR 4227 behind a 200 grain bullet, and muzzle up, and muzzle down, shot preparation and firing over the chronograph.
It is good to learn new techniques, with a new setup. Even if the setup is more than 100 years old. It is also good to read of H.M. Pope and the others of that era and their technique and their results. It is interesting to compare these results, using the same equipment as they did then, today.
However, as I understand it, pistol primers are not as tall as rifle primers, so when seated in the primer pocket, they will be seated more deeply than a rifle primer, giving rise to the question in my mind whether a firing pin will be long enough to reach them to set them off.
So I tried a little test. I simply seated a CCI large pistol primer in a 32-40 case, inserted it into the chamber, and dropped the hammer on it.
Bang!
So at least the first step returned a positive result. I also put the muzzle of the rifle into an old blanket/comforter I use to cover up my old motorcycle in the garage in the winter to keep dust off it. I did this to sort of muffle the blast from the little "amorce" when I set it off. I noticed a blackened, muzzle diameter area in the fabric of the blanket. Presumably the pistol primer blast traversed the entire length of the barrel to make that smudge.
This smudge got me thinking about small charges of powder in a comparatively large case, and powder position sensitivity. I haven't conducted any experiments yet on this phenomenon. The internet has plenty of commentary on this phenomenon, but dang, if the primer blast traverses 20+ inches of barrel to leave a burn mark on a blanket, it just doesn't seem like this powder position could be an issue. (???)
Next comes experimentation with breech seating and what seems like tiny charges of IMR 4227 behind a 200 grain bullet, and muzzle up, and muzzle down, shot preparation and firing over the chronograph.
It is good to learn new techniques, with a new setup. Even if the setup is more than 100 years old. It is also good to read of H.M. Pope and the others of that era and their technique and their results. It is interesting to compare these results, using the same equipment as they did then, today.
Last edited: